) reduce his rent, (3) pay him on leaving his holding for all his
improvements, and (4) not accept in his stead another tenant, even
though the latter may be anxious to take the holding at a higher figure
or turn him out for any other reason. In addition to all this, the
crofters demand that the government shall advance them money to enable
them to build suitable houses and improve and stock their farms. An
American tenant who should make such demands would be considered insane.
No such view of the crofters' claims, however, is taken in England and
Scotland.

What, then, are the grounds upon which these extensive claims are based?
Why should the crofter claim a right to have his holding enlarged and to
have the land at a lower rent than some one else may be willing to pay?
The reasons are to be found partly in his history, traditions, and
circumstances, and partly in the present tendency of the legislation and
discussions relating to the ownership and occupation of land.

Under the old clan system, to which the crofter is accustomed to trace
his claims, the land was owned by the chief and clansmen in common, and
allotments and reallotments were made from time to time to individual
clansmen, each of whom had a right to some portion of the land, while
the commons were very extensive. Rent or service was paid to the chief,
who had more or less control over the clan lands and often possessed an
estate in severalty, with many personal dependants. In many cases the
power of the chief was great and tyrannical, and many of the clansmen
were in a somewhat servile condition; but the more influential clansmen
seem sometimes to have retained permanent possession of their
allotments. Long ago sub-letting became common, and hard services were
often exacted of the sub-tenants, whose lot was frequently a most
unhappy one. The modern cottar, as well as the squatter, had his
representative in the dependant of the chief, or clansman, or in the
outlaw or vagrant member of another clan who came to build his rude
cabin wherever he could find a sheltered and unoccupied spot. No doubt
many of the sub-tenants, even where they held originally by base and
uncertain services and at the will of their superior, came in time, like
the English copyholder, to have a generally-recognized right to the
permanent possession of their holdings, while custom tended to fix the
character and quantity of their services. The population was not
numerous, and it w